Dong Zhou wrote:Regards romance, it isn't dead. I mean it may get abused into overly expensive things including weddings which may cost more then a house deposit, but it is there, people still long for it. Sex may have become more casual, we may not have formal dances anymore but a girl (or a man) still likes to be wooed, to be courted and made to feel special. Disney still does true love and that sells, the young adult films still play hugely into romance as much as action.

Romance is definitely still alive and well. I need only look to my own relationship for proof of that. We still have some formal dances for students here in the US (prom, homecoming, and the senior dance are big ones at my high school, as well as Sadie Hawkins - where the girls ask the guys out), and I think in general people like the "game" of romance. I personally would have to have strong feelings with someone before I'll lay down with them. Or sit, whatever.

I really don't know too many details about how sexual people were back in the 50's or so. Publically it was quite restrained, but I don't know about in private. I suspect sex among people is more casual, but I'm not really sure. I do think that the number of people that betray monogamous relationships is really, really high, or at least what I would consider high.

I remember reading a report from the UK a while back. A bunch of mothers were polled, and asked if their children were born of their husband's genes or someone else's. Something like 20% of women said that their children were not their husband's child, and that they didn't know. That's only kids born of an affair! I have to imagine the number of just plain affairs is higher. On the other hand, the UK is a bit weird. Oh, Dong, don't read that last sentence.

I don't have the credentials to see if this is different from numbers from the last century or earlier than that. But it is something that makes me think that things might be a bit too "casual", at least for my taste. I have no issue with single people or people who are in "open" relationships doing whatever they like. I do think it's morally wrong to have sex outside of a monogamous relationship.

...That was a bit of a ramble. Sorry, I lost track a bit there. But that's all I can think to say.

Sun Fin wrote:...I love walking down the street holding my girlfriend's hand. There is just something so romantic about it.

I know that feeling. When me and Beth watch Netflix together in bed, we're almost always snuggling in one way or another.

Sun Fin wrote:I'm really happy that I'm building a friendship with my girlfriend that isn't purely built on physical attraction.

Let's talk about this for a bit, because this is also interesting.

So, my girlfriend have a relationship that is definitely more than skin-deep. We just enjoy being around each other, and we're alike in all the ways that really matter. Probably natural to have deep feelings after 8+ years together.

That said, there is definitely some physical attraction there both ways, and I think that it's relatively important in a relationship unless the people involved are simply not interested in sex at all.

Each person has their own needs - biological (food, water, shelter), emotional (a certain level of intimacy and emotional support from family, friends, and lovers), spiritual (generally, but not always, having someone who shares your beliefs), and physical (all physical showings of love, from a high-five from friends to intercourse with a lover). How much each person needs these individual things and how they receive and give those things to their partner will change from person to person and even relationship to relationship. When these needs are generally compatible, and you get along well with each other, there's a chance that it can be something deep. Of course so many other factors are important, you can't say just from that.

So I would say that physical attraction (and each person's physical needs) are also really important to a relationship, but other things are also critical. I'm also of the opinion that a deep emotional bond makes the physical things (particularly sex) even better. I've had sex when it didn't mean much emotionally, and sex where I was completely in love with my partner. The first one is nothing to right home about. The second one is something that makes life worth living.

Bush Leagues wrote:Let's talk about this for a bit, because this is also interesting.

So, my girlfriend have a relationship that is definitely more than skin-deep. We just enjoy being around each other, and we're alike in all the ways that really matter. Probably natural to have deep feelings after 8+ years together.

That said, there is definitely some physical attraction there both ways, and I think that it's relatively important in a relationship unless the people involved are simply not interested in sex at all.

Each person has their own needs - biological (food, water, shelter), emotional (a certain level of intimacy and emotional support from family, friends, and lovers), spiritual (generally, but not always, having someone who shares your beliefs), and physical (all physical showings of love, from a high-five from friends to intercourse with a lover). How much each person needs these individual things and how they receive and give those things to their partner will change from person to person and even relationship to relationship. When these needs are generally compatible, and you get along well with each other, there's a chance that it can be something deep. Of course so many other factors are important, you can't say just from that.

So I would say that physical attraction (and each person's physical needs) are also really important to a relationship, but other things are also critical. I'm also of the opinion that a deep emotional bond makes the physical things (particularly sex) even better. I've had sex when it didn't mean much emotionally, and sex where I was completely in love with my partner. The first one is nothing to right home about. The second one is something that makes life worth living.

Sorry I didn't mean to give off the wrong impression there. I think that my girlfriend is beautiful and I wouldn't date her if there wasn't physical attraction. The point I was making is that there needs to be more than that. I saw many of my friends at university fall for a girl, have passionate sex for a month or two and then when that burned out they realised that they had nothing in common and actually they had no interest in trying to find something to keep them together. As opposed to the way round we're doing it (my girlfriend is also called Beth by the way ) where we found ourselves attracted to each other and have built a friendship whilst slowly becoming more intimate. I feel that is a far healthier way round to do it. Then when/if we're ready to make a permanent commitment, ie marriage we will begin having sex.

Sun Fin wrote:Sorry I didn't mean to give off the wrong impression there. I think that my girlfriend is beautiful and I wouldn't date her if there wasn't physical attraction.

I had assumed that, and gathered that from your post. I think I accidentally implied you didn't. Sorry, Sun!

Sun Fin wrote:The point I was making is that there needs to be more than that. I saw many of my friends at university fall for a girl, have passionate sex for a month or two and then when that burned out they realised that they had nothing in common and actually they had no interest in trying to find something to keep them together. As opposed to the way round we're doing it (my girlfriend is also called Beth by the way ) where we found ourselves attracted to each other and have built a friendship whilst slowly becoming more intimate. I feel that is a far healthier way round to do it. Then when/if we're ready to make a permanent commitment, ie marriage we will begin having sex.

For a long-lasting relationship, I definitely agree there needs to be more than sex - I doubt many will dispute that. That said, not every relationship is meant to be a marriage. I think it's perfectly fine for two people to be in a casual relationship as long as there's both aware and accepting of that fact. Consider the university example - you end up meeting someone in Macroeconomics 201, and there's immediate attraction, but almost all infatuation. The two might decide that a semester of studying together and "studying together" is something they're interested in, and so for a semester, that's their relationship. When the semester ends, they both know there's nothing deeper, and so part amiably. Nothing wrong with that.

We also shouldn't discount that many people enter long-lasting relationships the opposite way you and I have done it - rather, the infatuation was there first, and the sex was all there was to it, but over time, serious feelings grew, and intimacy and companionship became just as important as the passion. I'm hesitant to call either way better or worse, and don't think that feelings that come from sex, as opposed to sex that comes from feelings, are any less valid.

Bush Leagues wrote:I remember reading a report from the UK a while back. A bunch of mothers were polled, and asked if their children were born of their husband's genes or someone else's. Something like 20% of women said that their children were not their husband's child, and that they didn't know. That's only kids born of an affair! I have to imagine the number of just plain affairs is higher. On the other hand, the UK is a bit weird. Oh, Dong, don't read that last sentence.

I don't have the credentials to see if this is different from numbers from the last century or earlier than that. But it is something that makes me think that things might be a bit too "casual", at least for my taste. I have no issue with single people or people who are in "open" relationships doing whatever they like. I do think it's morally wrong to have sex outside of a monogamous relationship.

Tsk, when her Majesty orders the invasion of her uppity colony, you will be in trouble During WW2, there were a lot of affairs, so much so there had to be appeals for women to stay faithful and America had to set up it's own quiet little foster home I believe. There was free love of the 60's (if you lived in certain areas) so I wouldn't say it is new. Just more open

Sun Fin wrote:

Dong Zhou wrote:I'm a virgin so can't comment on sex being overatted or not but I would probably find holding hands a bit weird.

I'm the same on the first half but I love walking down the street holding my girlfriend's hand. There is just something so romantic about it.

I'm really happy that I'm building a friendship with my girlfriend that isn't purely built on physical attraction.

I'm all for affection and even stroking hands but holding hands for more then a few seconds is just clammy. I more associate it with a major show of support rather then romantic so that might be it.

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

I should have named this thread "society is in decadency" or "kids nowadays are despicable" because that was my point not sex itself, the other day some kids were killing a cat in the neighborhood...future serial killers

Watching the responses of this post, i have noticed that i was right, in fact i'm outdated. Rip 90s generation

Most of the people who responded in this thread are of the 90's generation or older. Only one is less then 20 years old. This is is hardly a bunch of new generation youngsters to be honest. As for old fashioned, you asked about sexual attitudes while the two things you ask now (while connected) are different

I'll respond to rest when I have more time

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

Dong Zhou wrote:Tsk, when her Majesty orders the invasion of her uppity colony, you will be in trouble

We beat ya twice before, we'll do it again!

Dong Zhou wrote:During WW2, there were a lot of affairs, so much so there had to be appeals for women to stay faithful and America had to set up it's own quiet little foster home I believe. There was free love of the 60's (if you lived in certain areas) so I wouldn't say it is new. Just more open

I hadn't really considered that strongly - I've even been watching M*A*S*H a lot recently, and "Dear John" letters are not uncommon. I think you're right on all points here.

Dong Zhou wrote:I'm all for affection and even stroking hands but holding hands for more then a few seconds is just clammy. I more associate it with a major show of support rather then romantic so that might be it.

Different strokes for different folks. I think holding someone's hand for a few seconds isn't too out of place for people who are only somewhat close (decently close, but not very close friends), but longer than for a few seconds (unless in a stressful situation where you really need the support), and I automatically think feelings are deeper than that. Maybe that's a mistake on my part.

CaoCaoTsundere wrote:I should have named this thread "society is in decadency" or "kids nowadays are despicable" because that was my point not sex itself, the other day some kids were killing a cat in the neighborhood...future serial killers

I basically agree that society has serious issues. I don't think this is the fault of the new generation, or technology, or anything like that. I have a suspicion as to why things are becoming the way they are, but that's all it is. Maybe it's always been like this, and we just don't know because we didn't live in those times. I feel like I know next-to-nothing about how everyday society was like in modern times (except the last 10-15 years or so).

Bush Leagues wrote:That said, not every relationship is meant to be a marriage. I think it's perfectly fine for two people to be in a casual relationship as long as there's both aware and accepting of that fact.

So this is where we differ. I do think every relationship should be entered with the intention of working towards marriage. I'm not saying that dating is an instant long term commitment but if you don't think it will work then I don't see the point. Now my view is shaped by my religious beliefs but it has been borne out in my experience. I'm yet to see a couple attempt 'a casual sex' friendship without at least one party falling for the other and ending up hurt and rejected. I just don't think you can separate sex from emotions as cleanly as this world would want you to believe.

Bush Leagues wrote:We also shouldn't discount that many people enter long-lasting relationships the opposite way you and I have done it - rather, the infatuation was there first, and the sex was all there was to it, but over time, serious feelings grew, and intimacy and companionship became just as important as the passion. I'm hesitant to call either way better or worse, and don't think that feelings that come from sex, as opposed to sex that comes from feelings, are any less valid.

I agree that relationships borne out in that way are just as valid. That doesn't mean that it is a healthy approach though. For every one relationship which does come to fruition in that way will be another 10 or 15 which end in far more painful terms. However I guess it is important to say that relationships built on friendships aren't perfect either, my girlfriend and I have struggles as well. However I think that a higher proportion if they are built like this last and those which are short living are going to be less painful break ups because you haven't got so involved.